I'm curious what the community thinks about the ouster (under pressure) of Brendan Eich from Mozilla.
Should someone be deprived of their livelihood for contributing to a candidate or cause with which we don't agree? Is it OK for a company to push someone out for personal views contrary to company policy that are not expressed on company time? Is it OK for people to try to force a company to fire someone because they don't care for the person's personal views or contributions?
In all cases? In some cases?
For those not familiar, here's a blog that sort of gives both sides of the argument, in that it quotes heavily from one while presenting another.
You are firmly under my mind control. I take advantage of your OCD-like personality and use it against you. I write short replies, and your condition forces you to produce lengthy rebuttals. You're helpless against the possibility of not having the last word.
And thus Unseen, thoroughly defeated, vents his bitter frustrations with a lowbrow ad hominem attack.
Remember folks, this valuable lesson is brought to you by Unseen, the distinguished teacher of logic: when you lose a debate on merit, say your opponent has a mentally diseased personality for rebutting your argument.
Well done, Unseen.
@Gallup's Mirror - Well done, Unseen.
I'm glad I live in Belgium where gay people are protected just as much as any other persecuted group.
I'm glad you live in Belgium, too.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
I'm not saying he should have been fired. I really don't care that much. I simply horrified that people in the US take the rights of one protected minority far more seriously than the rights of another protected minority.
You opened by inviting comments on a specific event-- Brendan Eich's ouster at Mozilla-- and shifted to generalizations. I'm going to address my comments to the specific case of Brendan Eich and Mozilla.
Should someone be deprived of their livelihood...
Let's not overstate this, Bob. Brendan Eich is a wealthy man. He's not on the street begging for nickels.
Donate $1000 to a Republican candidate? Sure. Give $1000 to support the Keystone Pipeline? You're in the clear. But lay your money on a spoilsport law against Those People? There's a turd in the pool. Get the strainer.
for contributing to a candidate or cause with which we don't agree?
Is it OK for a company to push someone out for personal views contrary to company policy that are not expressed on company time?
Yes, if your company hired a bigot-- against blacks, Jews, gays or whomever-- and board members resigned, employees were quitting, and users were abandoning your products. That's all very much happening on company time.
Is it OK for people to try to force a company to fire someone because they don't care for the person's personal views or contributions?
I don't think it's okay to use force. But I think it's okay to apply pressure-- in the form of boycotts, petitions, letter writing campaigns and so on-- until a company fires an anti-gay bigot CEO.
For those not familiar, here's a blog that sort of gives both sides of the argument, in that it quotes heavily from one while presenting another:
"That’s the argument: Each company has a right—indeed, it has a market-driven obligation—to make hiring and firing decisions based on “values” and “community standards.” It’s entitled to oust anyone whose conduct, with regard to sexual orientation, is “bad for business” or for employee morale. The argument should sound familiar. It has been used for decades to justify anti-gay workplace discrimination.
Twelve years ago, Larry Lane, a former manager at a carpet company, testified before Congress about how he lost his job: "[A gay man testifies that he was fired after being outed and workers came forward to say they felt uncomfortable working with him.]" Dissension. Building the team. Don’t fit. Sounds a lot like the case for removing Eich."
The blogger is reciting the classic 'false equivalence' canard that opposition to those who discriminate against a minority group is discrimination against the oppressor.
In other words, you are a bigot unless you tolerate bigotry; you are intolerant unless you tolerate intolerance. The fallacy is obvious but it never stops the bigots from trotting this one out. This time, the (dis)honor goes to some of the Brendan Eich apologists.
"Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984. With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state. Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute." Orson Scott Card
+1 an excellent reply.
I'll get a rope. Let's lynch him or drag him behind a car.
More seriously, I don't really think he was "ousted" so much as he realized that he wasn't in tune with the Mozilla corporate culture and that he couldn't be a successful